Peter Gleick, founder of the Pacific Institute and a noted environmental …

Last week, several documents that purportedly came from the Heartland Institute appeared on the Web, laying out the organization's financial efforts to undercut the mainstream understanding of climate science. Although the Heartland admitted that most of the materials were genuine, it claims they had been obtained via deception, and that one of the documents (the most inflammatory) was a fake. Now, a prominent environmental researcher has admitted that he impersonated a Heartland board member in order to obtain the documents, but claims they are all genuine.

If he was known to the public, however, it was probably due to his writing at Forbes, where he aggressively defended the scientific consensus on climate change and provided a counterpoint to another one of the Forbes bloggers, James Taylor, who is a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute. (Taylor's work has graced our pages in the past, as he helped set off a misguided media frenzy over a climate paper.) Gleick's battle with the Heartland now seems to have led him astray.

According to a statement that Gleick placed on the Huffington Post, he received a printout of the Heartland's strategy document in the mail (the one that the Heartland now claims is a forgery). Instead of passing that on to a journalist, Gleick claims he attempted to verify it himself, and posed as someone involved with the Heartland in order to get further documents sent to him. His ruse worked, and he received a set of financial documents in the mail. He then leaked the full collection to a number of climate bloggers.

Gleick's impersonation of someone at the Heartland may possibly be illegal, and it is certainly unethical. He has been offeringhis resignation to some of the groups he's worked with, and those groups are accepting it.

The irony of all of this is that a number of reporters have asked people named in the documents about the Heartland money that they've received, and they've been willing to confirm that they are involved in the projects named in the materials. Gleick didn't have to do any of this, which makes his actions that much more difficult to fathom.

What we know about the documents

Gleick's stepping forward, however, doesn't clarify much about the documents themselves. Heartland has admitted that several of them were genuine. Most of these simply confirm what we already knew: the group doesn't like mainstream climate science, and has funded people who have prominently attacked it. We can now attach dollar figures to some of that support, but those don't necessarily tell us all that much.

The real surprise of the documents was the Heartland's education program, which will apparently prepare material for the public schools. It's probably safe to assume that this would present a misleading picture of climate science, based on the writings of people like Taylor and the fact that the Heartland-funded NIPCC reports include material from Christopher Monckton, who has developed a reputation for serially mishandling scientific information.

However, it's entirely possible to accept that the people at the Heartland sincerely believe they are trying to do something useful. The only thing that suggested otherwise is a strategy document, which indicated that Heartland was hoping that its educational materials would suggest that climate change is confused and controversial in order to convince teachers to stay away from it.

That document, however, is the one that the Heartland has claimed is a forgery. And Gleick's admission, aside from raising general questions about his credibility, doesn't do anything to clarify that. Unless someone else comes forward, we're unlikely to ever find out whether the document is real.

Meanwhile, Heartland has gone on the attack. After spending years promoting the content of e-mails stolen from climate researchers at the University of East Anglia, it has suddenly found religion when it comes to the misappropriation of private documents, and is threatening to sue anyone who has hosted them. It has also said that, "We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes." Now that it knows the person is Gleick, the key question will be whether Heartland can find a law enforcement agency that will follow up on this information.

256 Reader Comments

I'm a fan of openness in general. On the other hand, I know how it would play if I decided to leak a bunch of stuff from my employer. We try to generally do a good job, but there are some cracks in our system, and obviously I'm not allowed to log them all and send them all out. Political advocacy is in play here, so don't be surprised if people create and use political strategy.

It's too bad that he resorted to dishonest tactics, but that in no way excuses the destructive behavior of well-funded think tanks like the Heartland Institute, nor does it automatically disprove the authenticity of the documents, although I'm sure the denialist attack machine will say otherwise.

It's too bad that he resorted to dishonest tactics, but that in no way excuses the destructive behavior of well-funded think tanks like the Heartland Institute, nor does it automatically disprove the authenticity of the documents, although I'm sure the denialist attack machine will say otherwise.

We will see it within the comments of this article soon enough -- misdirection and hand-waving are the denialist's tactics -- don't attack the facts, misdirect and subvert the conversation away from actual facts.

OT: sucks that Gleick stooped to that level -- no good will come of this.

"We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes."

And yet they have no problem with the hacking of an email server at East Anglia and widely distributing the stolen contents from that. I wouldn't be surprised if Heartland or another such group was behind the email hack in the first place.

I'm not necessarily excusing Gleick, but how is what he did different from going "under cover" to obtain information that one party would *never* give to an unknown person? (assuming he did not fabricate any information)

I don't really get why everyone seems to disapprove of Gleick's actions, aside from the obvious issue of conflict of interests. Obtaining internal documents and, yes, even impersonating members of an organization seems to be exactly what journalists should be doing to get the big scoop. Isn't that what we call investigative journalism?

I'm not necessarily excusing Gleick, but how is what he did different from going "under cover" to obtain information that one party would *never* give to an unknown person? (assuming he did not fabricate any information)

Wesly

It's not different. But then, spies are not very well treated when discovered (when they don't find themselves playing water sports in places like Gullag's or Guantanamo). And on the private sector, industrial spies when caught usually spend lots of time in jail.

I don't really get why everyone seems to disapprove of Gleick's actions, aside from the obvious issue of conflict of interests. Obtaining internal documents and, yes, even impersonating members of an organization seems to be exactly what journalists should be doing to get the big scoop. Isn't that what we call investigative journalism?

I don't think so. Investigative journalism usually involves investigating, whistleblowers and fact checking, without pretending to be someone else, which is a crime.

Maybe Peter Gleick just wanted to know the truth. Isn't that what scientists do? Sure he could have had reporters of bloggers do the investigation, but he took action and I can admire that. As far as ethics goes, Heartland doesn't have much moral high-ground to seize.

It's too bad that he resorted to dishonest tactics, but that in no way excuses the destructive behavior of well-funded think tanks like the Heartland Institute, nor does it automatically disprove the authenticity of the documents, although I'm sure the denialist attack machine will say otherwise.

We will see it within the comments of this article soon enough -- misdirection and hand-waving are the denialist's tactics -- don't attack the facts, misdirect and subvert the conversation away from actual facts.

OT: sucks that Gleick stooped to that level -- no good will come of this.

I agree, but the denialists don't exactly fight fairly either. Gleick should be applauded for his action (and for his courage in coming forward), but the maxim 'never wrestle with a pig' comes to mind.

Usually takes them between 1-2 hours to start responding in numbers. So we're about 30-90 minutes away from several newly registered posters talking about how this guy's actions completely discredit the info that he provided.

I'm not necessarily excusing Gleick, but how is what he did different from going "under cover" to obtain information that one party would *never* give to an unknown person? (assuming he did not fabricate any information)

That kind of thing is for law enforcement, not man-on-the-street. For regular people engaging in it with no judicial oversight, that can be called identity theft.

I don't really get why everyone seems to disapprove of Gleick's actions, aside from the obvious issue of conflict of interests. Obtaining internal documents and, yes, even impersonating members of an organization seems to be exactly what journalists should be doing to get the big scoop. Isn't that what we call investigative journalism?

I don't think so. Investigative journalism usually involves investigating, whistleblowers and fact checking, without pretending to be someone else, which is a crime.

I don't really get why everyone seems to disapprove of Gleick's actions, aside from the obvious issue of conflict of interests. Obtaining internal documents and, yes, even impersonating members of an organization seems to be exactly what journalists should be doing to get the big scoop. Isn't that what we call investigative journalism?

I don't think so. Investigative journalism usually involves investigating, whistleblowers and fact checking, without pretending to be someone else, which is a crime.

Are you sure about that? Unless you are trying to impersonate an officer of the law or a government official, I don't think you can be prosecuted for lying about who you are except under some circumstances (i.e. lying under oath, certain legal paperwork, identity theft for the purpose of using someone else's credit card, etc).

"We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes."

And yet they have no problem with the hacking of an email server at East Anglia and widely distributing the stolen contents from that. I wouldn't be surprised if Heartland or another such group was behind the email hack in the first place.

Are you sure about that? Unless you are trying to impersonate an officer of the law or a government official, I don't think you can be prosecuted for lying about who you are except under some circumstances (i.e. lying under oath, certain legal paperwork, identity theft for the purpose of using someone else's credit card, etc).

Yeah, impersonation is not a crime. There might be some fraud involved, but I believe that needs financial gains, which didn't happen here. I think he's mostly in the clear if he asked for something and they gave it to him, even if he did misrepresent himself.

Quote:

That kind of thing is for law enforcement, not man-on-the-street. For regular people engaging in it with no judicial oversight, that can be called identity theft.

I don't think he pretended to be someone real, just someone he claimed was associated with the organization. It's on them that they didn't check. It's not illegal to take advantage of stupid people.

also Food Lion v Capital Cities/ABC, in which a court decided that reporters posing as store employees to record health code violations was allowable because the store was unable to prove direct injury (damages were a result of their own actions, rather than the publication of those actions by another party)

Hearthland might have double standards with this and East Anglia university emails, but I wonder if East Anglia university and employees have such a double standard too. I bet they aren't condemning this.

Second thing I wonder is, is the most condeming document. This isn't the first time that people claim there are such a document. So either the rumour is true, or somebody was dissappointed that there aren't such a document, manufactured one and added it to the pile.

ps. If the budget was included, the money for the education should be mentioned there. As nobody has mentioned budger having it, it speaks against the education document being genuine.

For example, he posted a scathing review of a book - that he obviously hadn't read.

The book was Donna Laframboise's "The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert: An Expose of the IPCC." Gleick wrote "This book is a stunning compilation of lies, misrepresentations, and falsehoods about the fundamental science of climate change." Considering that the book isn't about the science of climate change, but about the people at the IPCC, it's obvious that he saw the title, became outraged at what he "knew" it contained, and wrote his "review."

When he got caught by people who read his claims about the book, he started whining - and made things worse.

The forged document is really, plainly just that - and various things in it point directly at Gleick. Even before he made his partial confession, a lot of folks had put two and two together and figured out that he'd written the fake.

Also interesting: the Heartland Institute was one of the organizations that gave Laframboise's book a hearty recommendation - which seems to indicate an additional motive for Gleick (the faked memo also points a finger at wattsupwiththat.com, a climate skeptic website that poked Gleick with a stick a few times.

The only thing that suggested otherwise is a strategy document, which indicated that Heartland was hoping that its educational materials would suggest that climate change is confused and controversial in order to convince teachers to stay away from it.

That document, however, is the one that the Heartland has claimed is a forgery. And Gleick's admission, aside from raising general questions about his credibility, doesn't do anything to clarify that.

No, it doesn't. And that remains the problem here because, as it turned out, that's the only document with (purported) information that's of any real import or interest.

Wesly wrote:

I'm not necessarily excusing Gleick, but how is what he did different from going "under cover" to obtain information that one party would *never* give to an unknown person? (assuming he did not fabricate any information)

Wesly

The next quote sort of answers your question -- he did fabricate information. Specifically, he fabricated his own identity and reasons for requesting the documents that were ultimately confirmed to be legitimate.

chronomitch wrote:

I don't really get why everyone seems to disapprove of Gleick's actions, aside from the obvious issue of conflict of interests. Obtaining internal documents and, yes, even impersonating members of an organization seems to be exactly what journalists should be doing to get the big scoop. Isn't that what we call investigative journalism?

Uh, no. To the contrary, this would be a serious breach of journalistic ethics. It's not even a shaky ground, borderline sort of question. Of course, Gleick isn't exactly a journalist (well, he did write for Forbes, but it doesn't appear that he took the actions here in connection with that work), so perhaps that's neither here nor there. At least he had the good sense to resign from his position as chair of the AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics.

Either way, the traditional term for such behavior is "Theft by false pretenses" (or, if you want to get old-skool about it, "larceny by trick").

edit:

Xavin wrote:

Quote:

Are you sure about that? Unless you are trying to impersonate an officer of the law or a government official, I don't think you can be prosecuted for lying about who you are except under some circumstances (i.e. lying under oath, certain legal paperwork, identity theft for the purpose of using someone else's credit card, etc).

Yeah, impersonation is not a crime. There might be some fraud involved, but I believe that needs financial gains, which didn't happen here. I think he's mostly in the clear if he asked for something and they gave it to him, even if he did misrepresent himself.

Quote:

That kind of thing is for law enforcement, not man-on-the-street. For regular people engaging in it with no judicial oversight, that can be called identity theft.

I don't think he pretended to be someone real, just someone he claimed was associated with the organization. It's on them that they didn't check. It's not illegal to take advantage of stupid people.

No, this is incorrect. Fraud does not require that the bad actor gain from the fraud. Rather, fraud requires that the defrauded party suffer injury (usually monetary damages) as a result. It is unclear whether fraud could be proven here because it hinges on whether Heartland can prove damages (the other elements at issue, intent, false representation, reliance thereon, have been conceded). It's certainly possible though.

Theft requires the the victim be deprived of property. That's actually an interesting question here because these were merely copies of the documents in question.

Theft is only an issue under state law. Fraud implicates federal law, as well. Given the breadth of the federal (criminal) wire fraud laws in the U.S., it is certainly possible that this falls within their ambit.

I don't really get why everyone seems to disapprove of Gleick's actions, aside from the obvious issue of conflict of interests. Obtaining internal documents and, yes, even impersonating members of an organization seems to be exactly what journalists should be doing to get the big scoop. Isn't that what we call investigative journalism?

I don't think so. Investigative journalism usually involves investigating, whistleblowers and fact checking, without pretending to be someone else, which is a crime.

Are you sure about that? Unless you are trying to impersonate an officer of the law or a government official, I don't think you can be prosecuted for lying about who you are except under some circumstances (i.e. lying under oath, certain legal paperwork, identity theft for the purpose of using someone else's credit card, etc).

Not sure how it works in the US, but I think I could characterize what he did as similar to industrial espionage (i.e., obtaining information that is considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information - in this case, he only got hold of the information by pretending to be a member of the institution).

Now, security on this institution is a joke. The guy just phoned and asked for classified documentation and got it. He should have asked for their account number and passowrd, that way he could have stopped them from doing anything to retaliate (no money = not buying press time or lawyers..

If Heartland were an honest organization, they would have nothing to hide, and not be upset that their dealings were made public. When a supposed non-profit wants to keep what they are doing secret, you have to wonder about their motives.

"We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes."

And yet they have no problem with the hacking of an email server at East Anglia and widely distributing the stolen contents from that. I wouldn't be surprised if Heartland or another such group was behind the email hack in the first place.

I'm sure Heartland would try to argue that UEA is a public university so the e-mails are public property and the public have a right to know what their tax dollars are being used for -- whereas Heartland is a private organization.

Please. Espionage? Is that the best they can do? The world wants to know why Americans are so ill-informed? Because, while it is legal to sell "bad" information about the climate to public school children, it may be illegal to do everything in one's power to diminish effects of that propaganda. MLK wrote that an unjust law is no law at all.

"Leaking"? Wow. No, he stole them illegally. This is not 'leaking', it's theft. And I will be consistent, the climate gate emails also required a theft, and whoever did it deserves to be brought to justice, just as does Gleick.

As for claiming that all the documents are authentic - he does no such thing. If we take him at his word, he has no idea where the strategy document came from.

Also, I have no idea why you seem to keep mincing words - the Strategy document *is* a forgery - so says the people who would know.

Not sure how it works in the US, but I think I could characterize what he did as similar to industrial espionage (i.e., obtaining information that is considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information - in this case, he only got hold of the information by pretending to be a member of the institution).

FWIW, we get calls from headhunters somewhat frequently, occasionally claiming to be our auditor firm, looking for names and titles of people, so they can try to poach them. I'd love it if it was a crime, and we could nail them for it. But I'm pretty sure it just falls under the underhanded slimeball heading.

"Meanwhile, Heartland has gone on the attack. After spending years promoting the content of e-mails stolen from climate researchers at the University of East Anglia, it has suddenly found religion when it comes to the misappropriation of private documents"

Im sure they wont be the only ones to have a change of hearts with regard to (possibly) illegally or unethically obtained documents.

"We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes."

And yet they have no problem with the hacking of an email server at East Anglia and widely distributing the stolen contents from that. I wouldn't be surprised if Heartland or another such group was behind the email hack in the first place.

This. Exactly this.

What, you guys expect Heartland to chase down the East Anglia hacker? Should East Anglia have brought Gleick to ground?

I can tell you I personally think that what Gleick and the East Anglia hacker did was a crime, and they should be punished to the full extent of the law.

"Leaking"? Wow. No, he stole them illegally. This is not 'leaking', it's theft. And I will be consistent, the climate gate emails also required a theft, and whoever did it deserves to be brought to justice, just as does Gleick.

Theft is when I have a thing, you then take it and I no longer have that thing. Heartland Institute still have its documents. Let us agree to call speeding speeding, rape rape and stealing stealing, there is enough misinformation in this debate as it is, ok?

"We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes."

And yet they have no problem with the hacking of an email server at East Anglia and widely distributing the stolen contents from that. I wouldn't be surprised if Heartland or another such group was behind the email hack in the first place.

I'm sure Heartland would try to argue that UEA is a public university so the e-mails are public property and the public have a right to know what their tax dollars are being used for -- whereas Heartland is a private organization.

That's probably what they would argue, but even if one could make the case that the emails are public property, I still think hacking the server and stealing the data is a crime.

I don't really get why everyone seems to disapprove of Gleick's actions, aside from the obvious issue of conflict of interests. Obtaining internal documents and, yes, even impersonating members of an organization seems to be exactly what journalists should be doing to get the big scoop. Isn't that what we call investigative journalism?

I don't think so. Investigative journalism usually involves investigating, whistleblowers and fact checking, without pretending to be someone else, which is a crime.

Are you sure about that? Unless you are trying to impersonate an officer of the law or a government official, I don't think you can be prosecuted for lying about who you are except under some circumstances (i.e. lying under oath, certain legal paperwork, identity theft for the purpose of using someone else's credit card, etc).

You are correct in that some circumstances will trigger legal issues. Any written content is considered property under international law (ie intellectual property). If that property has not been released into the public domain, the content has intrinsic value (ie supply is limited). If an individual misrepresents their identity so as to make a "claim" to gain said property using email, then they should be aware of 18 USC 1341 and 1343 (mail and wire fraud.) The potential risk is 20 to 30 years and heavy fines (ie millions) depending on the specific circumstances and facts. Definitely check with your lawyer before soliciting private material using a pseudonym.

For example, he posted a scathing review of a book - that he obviously hadn't read.

The book was Donna Laframboise's "The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert: An Expose of the IPCC." Gleick wrote "This book is a stunning compilation of lies, misrepresentations, and falsehoods about the fundamental science of climate change." Considering that the book isn't about the science of climate change, but about the people at the IPCC, it's obvious that he saw the title, became outraged at what he "knew" it contained, and wrote his "review."

When he got caught by people who read his claims about the book, he started whining - and made things worse.

The forged document is really, plainly just that - and various things in it point directly at Gleick. Even before he made his partial confession, a lot of folks had put two and two together and figured out that he'd written the fake.

Also interesting: the Heartland Institute was one of the organizations that gave Laframboise's book a hearty recommendation - which seems to indicate an additional motive for Gleick (the faked memo also points a finger at wattsupwiththat.com, a climate skeptic website that poked Gleick with a stick a few times.

There we go. Zero to conspiracy happens faster with each passing thread.

"Considering that the book isn't about the science of climate change, but about the people at the IPCC"

You really shouldn't go around slamming people for having an opinion on the text of books you think they haven't read when you haven't read them either. Regurgitating what blogs tell you does not pass for independent thinking.

"We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes."

And yet they have no problem with the hacking of an email server at East Anglia and widely distributing the stolen contents from that. I wouldn't be surprised if Heartland or another such group was behind the email hack in the first place.

This. Exactly this.

What, you guys expect Heartland to chase down the East Anglia hacker? Should East Anglia have brought Gleick to ground?

I can tell you I personally think that what Gleick and the East Anglia hacker did was a crime, and they should be punished to the full extent of the law.

No, but we expect Heartland Institute to denounce the actions, just like they denounce Gleick's actions. Since they did not denounce the actions of the hacker and freely used what information they could get their hands on, one could assume that they would treat others in the same manner they would like themselves treated.